MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified the rules courts must follow before declaring an individual a fugitive from justice, laying down guidelines and stressing that those who evade arrest or prosecution lose their standing to seek relief from Philippine courts.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC En Banc defined a fugitive from justice as someone who flees after conviction to avoid punishment or flees after being charged to evade prosecution. The key element, the Court said, is the intent to avoid prosecution or punishment.

An accused is generally considered a fugitive when they fail to appear physically before the court when required. The Court added that a person who leaves the Philippines knowing that an Information has been filed and a warrant of arrest has been issued demonstrates clear intent to evade arrest and prosecution, and may therefore be barred from seeking judicial relief.

Knowledge of an Information or warrant may be through actual notice—such as receiving copies—or constructive notice, including documented attempts by authorities to serve legal process.

The SC outlined the following guidelines for courts:

• After finding probable cause, the court shall issue a warrant of arrest.
• The warrant, including e-warrants, must be implemented within 10 calendar days from receipt by the executing officer.
• If the warrant cannot be served because the accused is outside the Philippines, the court may declare the accused a fugitive from justice. From that point, the person loses standing in court, cannot participate in the proceedings, and cannot seek judicial relief until they voluntarily surrender.
• A warrant unserved due to the accused’s absence abroad remains outstanding.
• The criminal case shall be archived if the accused remains at large six months after the warrant’s issuance, without prejudice to revival once the accused is arrested.

The case stemmed from a petition filed by Vallacar Transit, Inc. (VTI) and Nixon A. Banibane, who challenged a Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruling that allowed grave coercion proceedings involving Ricardo V. Yanson Jr. to continue despite his absence.

Ricardo, represented by Fortun Narvasa & Salazar, questioned the finding of probable cause before the Department of Justice and sought to suspend the proceedings. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) initially granted his motion but later ordered the release and implementation of the arrest warrant.

The warrant could not be served because Ricardo had already left the Philippines, according to the Bureau of Immigration. Through a Special Power of Attorney, he authorized his lawyers to represent him in Philippine court proceedings. He did not appear for arraignment, prompting the MTCC to archive the case after six months of unsuccessful attempts to serve the warrant.

The RTC later ruled in Ricardo’s favor, but the SC reversed the ruling, saying Ricardo should not be allowed to continue seeking affirmative relief while evading arrest.

The Court stressed that jurisdiction requires custody over the accused to ensure the enforceability of any judgment. It clarified its 2006 ruling in Miranda v. Tuliao, which generally treats the filing of pleadings seeking relief as submission to jurisdiction, explaining that an exception must exist when the accused is a fugitive.

The SC said allowing fugitives to participate through counsel while remaining outside the court’s reach undermines the criminal justice system. In such cases, custody—either through arrest or voluntary surrender—is required before the court may proceed.

The Court remanded the case to the MTCC to determine whether the warrant could not be executed because Ricardo is outside the Philippine jurisdiction, and if so, to declare him a fugitive from justice.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, in a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, agreed with applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine but said the grave coercion case should have been suspended due to a prejudicial question arising from pending intra-corporate cases involving the parties.

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, in a Dissenting and Concurring Opinion, agreed with the clarified definition of a fugitive but argued that the petition should be denied, also citing the prejudicial question posed by ongoing intra-corporate disputes.